Judicial Watch » IRShttp://www.judicialwatch.org
Because no one is above the law!Tue, 03 Mar 2015 22:48:09 +0000en-UShourly1Judicial Watch Sues IRS for Records on Destroyed Hard Drives of Lois Lerner, Other IRS Officialshttp://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-sues-irs-records-destroyed-hard-drives-lois-lerner-irs-officials/
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-sues-irs-records-destroyed-hard-drives-lois-lerner-irs-officials/#commentsFri, 27 Feb 2015 18:59:13 +0000http://www.judicialwatch.org/?post_type=press_release&p=74080(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that on February 18, 2015, it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) seeking “any and all records related to the destruction of damaged hard drives from IRS employee computers from January 1, 2010, to the present.” The suit was filed...

]]>(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that on February 18, 2015, it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) seeking “any and all records related to the destruction of damaged hard drives from IRS employee computers from January 1, 2010, to the present.” The suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Judicial Watch v Internal Revenue Service (No 1:15-cv-00237)). The lawsuit is part of an investigation into the Obama IRS’ claim that the emails of Lois Lerner and other IRS officials, who are being investigated for abuses of Obama’s political opponents, were contained on hard drives that were subsequently damaged and destroyed.

The suit was filed after the IRS responded to a July 18, 2014, FOIA request for records, saying that it did not find “documents specifically responsive” to the Judicial Watch request. In the same letter, dated October 14, 2014, the IRS contradicted this claim, asserting that “records that pertain to the destruction of damaged hard drives are not maintained in a searchable manner.”

On November 18, 2014, Judicial Watch appealed the IRS decision, and requested another search of records and full access to all responsive documents. In its letter of appeal, Judicial Watch argued that it was “extremely unlikely” that no searchable records existed, given the extensive media coverage of the “lost” records. On December 10, the IRS denied the Judicial Watch appeal.

The subsequent February 18, 2015, Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit is related to the obstruction and the misleading explanations of allegedly destroyed computer records in another Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit (Judicial Watch v Internal Revenue Service (No. 1:13-cv-01559)). On July 10, 2014, Judge Emmet Sullivan granted Judicial Watch a request for a status hearing to discuss allegedly missing emails from Lerner and other IRS officials. The hearing resulted in Judge Sullivan issuing two orders (dated July 10 and August 14). The IRS was ordered to detail under oath how some of the emails of former agency official Lois Lerner went missing or became destroyed, where they might be located, and what steps were being taken to retrieve them.

As a result of a court-ordered investigation, it was disclosed to Judicial Watch by Department of Justice attorneys for the IRS that Lois Lerner’s emails, indeed all government computer records, are backed-up by the federal government in case of a government-wide catastrophe. The Obama administration attorneys said that this back-up system would be too onerous to search. In an October 2014 federal court filing, the IRS did not deny that the government-wide back-up system exists, and, moreover, acknowledges to the court that 760 other email “servers” have been discovered but had not been searched. Citing critical comments by citizens on blogs that it was monitoring, the IRS also refuses to disclose the names of the IRS officials who may have information about the IRS scandal and the missing emails. The IRS has only searched a “database” that it knows does not contain the missing records being sought by a federal court, Judicial Watch, and Congress. In fact, Politico reports that in recent testimony “Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration said IRS tech employees told them that IRS management never asked for the tapes.”

In its February 18 FOIA lawsuit, Judicial Watch points out that the IRS has already admitted to this federal court that documents about the destruction of hard drives exist:

In a related FOIA lawsuit filed by [Judicial Watch], Defendant [IRS] submitted a sworn declaration on August 11, 2014 that describes, in part, the process for the destruction of damaged hard drives, and specifically the damaged hard drive of former IRS employee Lois Lerner …

The declaration specifically references “standard Internal Revenue Procedure disposal procedures for any equipment with data storage capability.” Defendant later submitted another declaration, which referenced and attached IRS FORM 1933 and IRS Standard Form 120 Rev. Both forms refer to and concern the removal and disposal of equipment with data storage capability in June 2012, including a Blackberry device issued to Lois Lerner …

At a minimum, IRS Form 1933, IRS Standard Form 120 Rev., “the standard Internal Revenue Procedure disposal procedures” and any other records describing or related to the destruction of damaged hard drives during the time frame of Plaintiff’s FOIA request are responsive to Plaintiff’s request in this case.

“The Obama IRS, aided and abetted by the Department of Justice, continues to engage in a pattern of deception, delays, and clear violations of federal law,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “In this latest game, the IRS first denies there are records about the destruction of Lois Lerner’s hard drive and then suggests that there may be records, but it would too difficult to look for them. Try that one during your next IRS audit. The IRS scandal isn’t going away, and it is beginning to look like the IRS destroyed evidence about its abuse of Obama’s enemies list of Tea Party groups and conservatives.”

]]>http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-sues-irs-records-destroyed-hard-drives-lois-lerner-irs-officials/feed/0ABCs of IRS Mess; Justice Dept. Is Tainted Toohttp://www.judicialwatch.org/bulletins/abcs-irs-mess-justice-dept-tainted/
http://www.judicialwatch.org/bulletins/abcs-irs-mess-justice-dept-tainted/#commentsMon, 23 Feb 2015 18:05:48 +0000http://www.judicialwatch.org/?post_type=inv_bull&p=73957First published in the New York Post, January 29, 2015 At her confirmation hearings Wednesday, Loretta Lynch said she’s only “generally aware” of the Justice Department’s investigation of IRS targeting of conservative groups. As a service for our likely new attorney general, here’s a primer on why so many in Congress want a special counsel...

At her confirmation hearings Wednesday, Loretta Lynch said she’s only “generally aware” of the Justice Department’s investigation of IRS targeting of conservative groups.

As a service for our likely new attorney general, here’s a primer on why so many in Congress want a special counsel in the IRS case.

Under federal rules, the attorney general appoints a special counsel “when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter . . . would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances.”

In this case, there’s both.

On May 14, 2013, the Treasury Department’s Inspector General reported that the IRS had “used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions.”

Responding to the public outcry, Attorney General Eric Holder announced, “I have ordered an investigation to be begun. The FBI is coordinating with the Justice Department to see if any laws were broken.”

Problem is, Justice had long been interested in IRS investigations of tax-exempt groups.

Back in October 2010, the head of Justice’s Election Crimes Branch, Richard Pilger, met with IRS Exempt Organizations Director Lois Lerner — the woman at the center of the affair.

As Pilger later told House investigators, the meeting came at the request of Jack Smith, the director of Justice’s powerful Public Integrity Section.

It was one month before the 2010 midterm elections. The Tea Party was on the rise. Democrats were arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United that January had unleashed a torrent of campaign spending.

Within weeks of the Citizens United ruling, according to the Treasury IG’s report, a Cincinnati-based IRS unit under Lerner’s direction began searching for tax-exemption requests involving the words “Tea Party” and other “political sounding names.”

So Lerner had been at work for months when she met with Pilger that October 2010. He told investigators that the meeting was to explore being “more vigilant to the opportunities from more crime” in the tax-exempt organizations area.

Lerner’s agenda was clear. Days after the meeting with Pilger, she addressed the Citizens United decision in a talk at Duke University.

“They want the IRS to fix the problem,” Lerner said. “So everybody is screaming at us right now: ‘Fix it before the [2010 midterm] election. Can’t you see how much these people are spending?’”

The October 2010 events are significant. They establish high-level Justice Department interest in IRS targeting of conservative groups.

The events also set a partisan political context to the Justice and IRS actions: Everyone — meaning, everyone in liberal Democratic circles — is screaming at us right now to fix Citizens United.

Three years later, Pilger and Lerner were still at it. In a May 2013 e-mail uncovered by Judicial Watch, Lerner discussed with a colleague a call from Pilger on the thoughts of Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) about building “false-statement cases” against tax-exempt groups.

Whitehouse’s “idea,” Lerner wrote, was “that DoJ could piece together false-statement cases about applicants who ‘lied’ on their [tax-exempt applications].” She added, “DoJ is feeling like it needs to respond.”

Smith and Pilger aren’t the only Justice Department officials with conflicts of interest in the IRS case.

Another sign that Justice has a conflict of interest here is the woman tapped to lead its IRS investigation: Barbara Bosserman of the department’s Civil Rights Division. She has no apparent experience in cases where high-level political wrongdoing is at issue.

And she gave almost $7,000 to President Obama’s political campaigns and the Democratic National Committee. In 2009, according to Fox News, she attended a White House event hosted by the president.

Then there’s Andrew Strelka. Working in Justice’s Tax Division, he represented the IRS in two civil cases related to the targeting of tax-exempt groups, including a Freedom of Information battle with Judicial Watch. And before Justice, he worked for the IRS in Lois Lerner’s Exempt Organizations division.

“I cherished my time in the EO family,” Strelka e-mailed Lerner, “and I owe a big thanks to you for hiring me.”

Strelka’s ties to Lerner were so strong that both Treasury and Justice interviewed him in their IRS probes. But when he was defending the IRS in targeting matters, he failed to disclose to the judge or opposing counsel his ties to the IRS and Lerner.

The involvement of Smith, Pilger, Bosserman and Strelka all point to conflicts of interest for the Justice Department in the case.

Lynch should also weigh the statements of President Obama.

In December 2013, he waved off concerns about IRS pressure on his political opponents, saying a “bureaucratic . . . list” drawn up in “an office in Cincinnati” was the cause of Tea Party targeting. The next February, he said on Fox News that there was “not even a smidgen of corruption” in the IRS targeting affair.

In fact, we still don’t know how far up the political food chain the malfeasance goes. Among other things, investigators are still pouring through tens of thousands of e-mails uncovered months after the IRS had insisted they were lost.

But we do know the Justice Department investigation has been compromised, not least by the president announcing its conclusions before the probe is complete.

Lynch should move fast to restore an aura of independence and impartiality to the investigation by turning it over to a special counsel.

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released new internal Department of Justice (DOJ) documents revealing that the Internal Revenue Service Office of Chief Counsel’s office delayed approval of an IRS employee’s meeting with DOJ and FBI investigators into the Obama IRS targeting scandal. The emails also detail the involvement the Public Integrity Section of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division with the investigation. The documents show, the Public Integrity Section was investigating the IRS scandal only a month after it reached out to Lois Lerner about prosecuting targeted tax-exempt entities. This is the first window into the criminal investigation of the alleged IRS abuses.

The Public Integrity Section previously has been tied to an effort to work with the Obama IRS in an effort to prosecute the very groups and individuals critical of the Obama administration and the president’s reelection that the IRS has admitted to illicitly targeting.

Any and all records concerning meetings and/or communications between the Department of Justice Criminal Division Public Integrity Section and the Internal Revenue Service Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division, the White House, Members of Congress and/or congressional staff, and any non-government entity, regarding 501(c)(4) or other tax-exempt organizations.

The emails show that, on June 12, 2013, the lawyer for a cooperating IRS employee in Cincinnati complained to a DOJ prosecutor about the IRS Counsel’s office delaying approval of a meeting between the IRS employee and Justice Department prosecutors: “[W]e find it amazing that they didn’t immediately respond giving us the green light to meet with you.”

The DOJ prosecutor wanted to know who the contact in the IRS Counsel’s office was and wrote back: “Let’s talk in am if they don’t get back to you. Thanks.”

The new emails suggest that investigators had wanted to meet quickly but it was nearly a month before the unnamed IRS employee met to proffer evidence to two Justice Department prosecutors, two FBI officials, and an investigator from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. The proffer session seems to have taken place in the IRS’ Cincinnati office on July 11, 2013, and included the IRS employee’s attorney, who the documents suggest works at the Cincinnati area law firm Adams, Stepner, Woltermann & Dusing PLLC. The documents detail that the proffer took place after a Garrity immunity waiver was secured for the IRS witness. Garrity immunity assures the right of public employees not to be compelled to incriminate themselves.

The email exchanges show that a trial attorney from the Public Integrity Section was partnered with an unnamed attorney from the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department.

Barbara Bosserman, an attorney at the Civil Rights Division, has been reported to be leading the IRS investigation at Justice. The DOJ, in court filings in another Judicial Watch lawsuit about Bosserman’s role in the case, confirmed that she is one of the attorneys investigating the IRS matter. According to Federal Election Commission records, Bosserman contributed $6,750 to Obama’s campaigns and the DNC from 2004 to 2012, including 12 separate contributions to Obama for America between 2008 and 2012.

William J. Wilkins, the Chief Counsel for the IRS, is a political appointee of President Obama’s. Wilkins was a former Democratic staffer the U.S Senate, a donor to Democratic candidates and committees, and was a lobbyist for several years. The May 14, 2013, Treasury Inspector General report that revealed that the IRS had singled out groups with conservative-sounding terms such as “patriot” and “Tea Party” in their titles when applying for tax-exempt status details that the “Chief Counsel” was involved in the IRS’s Tea Party and conservative targeting.

In this second “rolling production,” the Justice Department released 34 pages of heavily redacted emails, while admitting that it had reviewed 938 pages of responsive records related to its contacts with the IRS concerning the criminal prosecution of targeted tax exempt entities. As of today’s date, the DOJ has reviewed 1,772 pages of records in this case, but only produced 36 heavily redacted pages. Held in their entirety are 1,736 pages.

The new documents also provide detail on what the investigators were examining and the nature of the documents it wanted from the IRS witness. On July 12, 2013, the DOJ attorney (whose name is blacked out) emails:

First, we would appreciate receiving the time line related to the “TAG spreadsheet” and “BOLO” that [REDACTED] prepared. As we stated, that timeline will be covered by the proffer agreement she executed yesterday …

Second, we would also appreciate obtaining the email communications that you obtained from [REDACTED-BLACKED OUT] pertaining to the 501(c)-application issues we discussed yesterday, i.e., the public allegations that the IRS “targeted” certain groups based on their political viewpoints, in particular groups associated with the ‘Tea Party.” As I explained yesterday, due to the filter procedures we have in place, could you please divide the communications into two groups, those dated before and those dated on or after March 1, 2012? To the extent practical, the emails dated on or after March 1, 2012, should be placed in a sealed envelope or otherwise clearly separated from the first batch (i.e., if they are scanned and emailed, please do so in separate files). To the extent any of these applications contain taxpayer information, return information, and/or taxpayer return information, the Department of Justice and the FBI have referral authority under 18 U.S.C. 6103(h) to view this information by virtue of our participation in a joint investigation with TIGTA.

The documents do not detail why the emails needed to be “filtered” according to the March 1, 2012, date, though there is a reference to Justice Department “filter team” elsewhere in the material.

“The IRS scandal is getting worse. These documents show that the Obama IRS Counsel’s office, run by an Obama political appointee, was stonewalling a federal criminal investigation. And only in the Holder Justice Department would it be deemed appropriate that the offices implicated in the IRS abuses should investigate the IRS abuses,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “And one might wonder why the Justice Department was so quick to offer an immunity deal to an IRS employee. This is an ugly mess and it is no surprise that, after nearly two years, the criminal investigation of the Obama IRS by its co-conspirators at the Obama Justice Department is widely acknowledged as a farce.”

In early December 2014, Judicial Watch released the first batch of internal DOJ documents revealing that former IRS official Lois Lerner had been in contact with DOJ officials about the possible criminal prosecution of tax-exempt entities two full years before what the IRS conceded was its “absolutely inappropriate” 2012 targeting of the organizations. According to the documents, Lerner met with top Obama DOJ Criminal Division officials as early as October 2010.

In April 2014, Judicial Watch forced, through a federal court order, the release of IRS documents revealing that the Department of Justice’s Public Integrity Section reached out to former IRS official Lois Lerner on May 8, 2013, about whether it was possible to criminally prosecute targeted tax-exempt entities. The documents were obtained as a result of an October 2013 Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit filed against the IRS.

]]>http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/new-documents-offer-glimpse-criminal-investigation-obama-irs-scandal/feed/1Obama Administration Refuses to Release Time Records of Key Attorney in IRS Scandal Investigationhttp://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/obama-administration-refuses-release-time-records-key-attorney-irs-scandal-investigation/
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/obama-administration-refuses-release-time-records-key-attorney-irs-scandal-investigation/#commentsTue, 27 Jan 2015 16:57:56 +0000http://www.judicialwatch.org/?post_type=press_release&p=73655Judicial Watch announced today that the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) is going to extreme lengths to keep from the public the number of hours DOJ Attorney Barbara Bosserman expended on the investigation of the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of conservative organizations.

]]>Judicial Watch Asks Court to Force Justice Department to Release Number of Hours Worked on Criminal Inquiry into Obama IRS Abuses

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) is going to extreme lengths to keep from the public the number of hours DOJ Attorney Barbara Bosserman expended on the investigation of the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of conservative organizations. The DOJ has claimed no less than four separate privileges in federal court to keep secret Bosserman’s hours. In doing so, the DOJ has confirmed that the criminal investigation into the IRS’ abuses is ongoing and that Bosserman, a major donor to Obama’s political campaigns and Democratic National Committee, continues to be part of the team of lawyers criminally investigating the issue. The developments come in a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch against the Justice Department to obtain the information about Bosserman’s activities.

In a January 14, 2015, legal filing, Judicial Watch lawyers not only asked the court to reject the Justice Department’s secrecy arguments but to review the documents at issue itself and rule summarily for Judicial Watch. The lawsuit is before U.S. District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell and is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Judicial Watch, Inc. vs. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:14-cv-01024)). Judicial Watch notes in its filing:

[Judicial Watch] does not seek information describing the type of work Ms. Bosserman conducted. Nor does it seek information about how she spent her time. Nor does it seek Ms. Bosserman’s notes about locations visited, persons consulted, staff briefings, and other case developments. Again, [Judicial Watch] solely seeks information about the number of hours Ms. Bosserman expended on the aforementioned criminal investigation. Nevertheless, Defendant claims everything but the kitchen sink in its effort to withhold the time records in their entirety.

In early January 2014, Bosserman was reportedly appointed by Attorney General Eric Holder to oversee the DOJ/ FBI investigation despite her substantial political activities. According to Federal Election Commission records, Bosserman contributed $6,750 to Obama’s campaigns and the DNC from 2004 to 2012, including 12 separate contributions to Obama for America between 2008 and 2012. In a strongly worded letter to Holder, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform chairman Darryl Issa (R-CA) called the Bosserman appointment “a startling conflict of interest [that has] compromised the Administration’s investigation of the IRS.”

All Justice Department records from the Interactive Case Management System [a web-based system for storing and accessing information about contacts, calendars, cases, documents, time tracking, and billing, etc.] detailing the number of hours DOJ Attorney Barbara Bosserman expended on the investigation of the Internal Revenue Service targeting conservative organizations seeking tax-exempt status in the 2010 and 2012 elections cycles.

Despite this request for limited information, it took the DOJ five months to reject Judicial Watch’s request, writing in a letter on June 26, 2014, that releasing the information would be an “unwarranted invasion” of Ms. Bosserman’s privacy. Prior to receiving that response, Judicial Watch sued the Justice Department under the Freedom of Information Act.

In November 2014, the Justice Department filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in which DOJ lawyers confirm Ms. Bosserman’s involvement in the investigation but state that, “there is no public interest served by revealing Ms. Bosserman’s time records … as Ms. Bosserman is only one member of a larger investigative team.” This characterization seems at odds with statements by the Department of Justice, administration witnesses, Congress, and press reports that Ms. Bosserman, a senior legal counsel in the Civil Rights Division, is leading the investigation.

The DOJ’s legal brief included a declaration by Justice Department FOIA official Nelson D. Hemilla that states under “penalty of perjury”:

The Justice Department is currently conducting a criminal investigation into alleged misconduct by IRS employees in connection with their handling of applications for tax-exempt status by certain organizations. The investigation is being conducted by career civil servants in the Civil Rights Division and the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division, as well as agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigations and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.”

(Curiously, the Obama Justice Department’s November 2014 legal filing that describes its limited investigation of improper IRS targeting does not acknowledge that “certain organizations” at issue in the IRS matter were Tea Party, conservative, or opposed to President Obama’s policies.)

Separate Judicial Watch lawsuits forced the release of IRS and Justice Department documents that implicate the Justice Department, its Public Integrity Section, and Obama supporters in Congress in the IRS abuse scandal. These Judicial Watch disclosures also led to the discovery by Congress that the FBI had obtained, illegally, over a million pages of IRS files. Under Justice Department regulations:

The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and–(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney’s Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and (b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.”

“All Judicial Watch wants is the number of hours that the Obama donor/Justice Department lawyer has spent investigating the worst IRS abuse in American history,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “That the Justice Department has violated the law to keep this information secret is further confirmation that President Obama’s Justice Department is hopelessly conflicted in the IRS scandal. Thanks to Judicial Watch, the public knows that the Justice Department and the FBI are co-conspirators with the IRS – and planned to prosecute citizens on Obama’s political hit list. Obama’s IRS abuse is far worse than Nixon’s. And as with Watergate, the public interest and basic legal ethics principles require that the U.S. Attorney General appoint special counsel to investigate the IRS scandal. The U.S. Senate should ask Loretta Lynch, the president’s nominee to replace the disgraced Eric Holder as U.S. Attorney General, about this issue.”

]]>http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/obama-administration-refuses-release-time-records-key-attorney-irs-scandal-investigation/feed/2David King, et al. v. Sylvia Burwell, et al., (No. 14-114)http://www.judicialwatch.org/cases/david-king-et-al-v-sylvia-burwell-et-al-no-14-114/
http://www.judicialwatch.org/cases/david-king-et-al-v-sylvia-burwell-et-al-no-14-114/#commentsFri, 16 Jan 2015 20:34:01 +0000http://www.judicialwatch.org/?post_type=docket_case&p=72102On December 24, 2014, Judicial Watch filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the IRS and the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Treasury over a decision by the agencies to ignore a key provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

]]>On December 24, 2014, Judicial Watch filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the IRS and the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Treasury over a decision by the agencies to ignore a key provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The lawsuit seeks specifically to prevent the IRS from providing refundable tax credits to individuals who purchase health care coverage through a federal rather than a state exchange. The amicus brief was filed in the Supreme Court of the United States

In its brief, Judicial Watch argued that the decision by the Obama IRS to extending ACA tax credits to individuals purchasing health care through federal exchanges “does not harmonize with the clear purpose of Congress” and could jeopardize the balance of powers:

Petitioners request that the Court to reaffirm the basic principle that the Executive Branch cannot disregard federal statutes in favor of its own policy choices and reverse “the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (“Fourth Circuit”) If the ruling were to stand, the constitutional system of separation of powers would be significantly altered.

]]>http://www.judicialwatch.org/cases/david-king-et-al-v-sylvia-burwell-et-al-no-14-114/feed/1New Documents: Lerner Objected to IRS Deputy Director Visit to Cincinnati Office During Congressional Inquiries into Tea Party Targetinghttp://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/irs-foia-batch-7-and-8/
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/irs-foia-batch-7-and-8/#commentsWed, 14 Jan 2015 17:32:41 +0000http://www.judicialwatch.org/?post_type=press_release&p=71736“Please don’t ask them about closures, pipelines, wait time for full development cases, or the c4 application letter … can we put this off please?” – Lerner email to IRS Deputy Director Joseph Grant, April 2012 (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released a new batch of Internal Revenue Service (IRS) documents, including a series...

]]>“Please don’t ask them about closures, pipelines, wait time for full development cases, or the c4 application letter … can we put this off please?”

– Lerner email to IRS Deputy Director Joseph Grant, April 2012

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released a new batch of Internal Revenue Service (IRS) documents, including a series of emails from former IRS official Lois Lerner to then-Tax Exempt and Government Entities (TE/GE) Division Deputy Director Joseph H. Grant strongly objecting to his planned visit to the IRS Cincinnati office “smack dab in the middle” of congressional inquiries into the IRS targeting of conservative groups. Lerner also expresses concerns about a pending investigation by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) into the IRS’s handing of Tea Party applications.

The new IRS internal documents were released in response to a federal court order addressing the October 9, 2013, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit Judicial Watch filed seeking compliance with four separate FOIA requests about the IRS scandal.

The newly released documents include an intense chain of emails in which Lerner pleads with Grant, who was a supervisor to her, to “put this [Grant’s planned visit to Cincinnati] off please” at the very time during which both the internal IRS watchdog and Congress were investigating whether the IRS had been inappropriately targeting conservative groups in the months leading up to the 2012 elections. The chain begins with an email from Lerner to Grant, apparently written in response to her learning of the Deputy Director’s planned visit to the Cincinnati office:

We just gor an very extensive information request from Imraan [Imraan Khakoo, TE/GE official] –sure looks like op review material. I’m especially concerned that information about pipeline is being asked about … Add to that the fact tha cincinnati is smack dab in the middle of the c4 Congressional inqueries and is about to get a request from TIGTA on all of that, this is NOT a good time to be asking them for anything or to be talking to them about issue in their work. Everyone is stressed to the max and at their wits end, so can we put this off please? [Typos in originals]

It is a visit, not an OP review … I am also interested in the questions Imraan sent to them. Some answers should be readily at hand. Others certainly won’t be … The questions just serve as a framework for a broader conversation about how things are going and what is on our respective minds.

Fine with me–just trying to keep the stress level manageable in Cincinnati–they are pretty freaked. Please don’t ask them about closures, pipelines, wait time for full development cases, or the c4 application letters. I know Imraan is really interested in that stuff in general—I promise to give him info—that just wouldn’t be the best place to ask. Thanks

On May 8, 2013, a few days before the IRS scandal broke, then-Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller promoted Mr. Grant to TE/GE Commissioner, where he was to “oversee the administration of tax law relating to employee plans, tax-exempt organizations and various government entities.” Miller announced his resignation on May 15, 2013 and Grant announced his retirement the next day.

These IRS documents also include what appears to be further evidence that, contrary to Lerner’s earlier claims, the IRS targeting operation was conducted from the agency’s Washington headquarters. In May 2013, Lerner blamed the targeting of conservative groups on “low-level” employees in Cincinnati. President Obama parroted Lerner’s claim and suggested the IRS targeting was due to “bonehead decisions in local offices.” In February 2012, however, the following email exchange revealed that from 2010, Exempt Organizations (EO) Technical was deeply involved in advocacy organization applications. According to IRS Bulletin 2013-2, “The EO Technical office is located in Washington, DC.”

Lois, EO Determinations noticed an uptick in applications from advocacy organizations early in 2010. The first case was referred to EO Technical in…2010. That case was an application for…status. It closed…2010 when the… At that time, EO Technical requested another…from an…be transferred to EO Technical. Such a case was transferred in…2010. That case also closed…2012 after the… EO Technical also requested an application from a…be transferred from Determinations. A case was transferred in…2010. It is still being developed by EO Technical. To give you a sense of the growth in the number of these cases, in October 2010, we had identified approximately 40 advocacy cases.

As of about 10:00 a.m. on 2/28/2012, we had 229 of these cases. Of the 229 cases, 141 have been assigned. Development letters have been sent to the majority of the 141 assigned cases. The oldest control dates of those cases that are still unassigned are 2/8/2011, 3/18/2011, 4/28/2011, and 5/28/2011. These will be assigned next. Otherwise, we’re at approximately 6/6/2011 control date for these cases. EO Technical provided guidance regarding the development of applications by advocacy organizations to EO Determinations in November 2011.

Paz’s allegation about an “uptick in applications from advocacy organizations early in 2010” is contradicted by the May 14, 2013, TIGTA report on the matter, which details that such applications actually declined in 2010 from the prior year.

Additional emails on the same date indicate that Lerner knew that the requests for information from the targeted Tea Party groups were burdensome.

Have we given Cincy new guidance on how they might reduce the burden in the information requests and make it clearer that recipients can ask for extensions? I don’t want any more letters going out on advocacy cases until the letters have been adjusted. Also, I have been telling folks that not all the letters are the same because it depends on the facts. What I’ve seen so far though is identical letters–can you clarify for me please. Thanks

Andy and Justin are working on revising the letter. That should be done soon. In the meantime, Cindy [Cindy Thomas, Director of OE Cincinnati Office] and I discussed having specialists print the relevant parts of since that seemed to be the most burdensome request. We can hold off on sending anymore development letters until we have the revised version.

Also in the new internal IRS documents obtained by Judicial Watch is an email confirming that former IRS Acting Commissioner Steven Miller knew from early 2012 that the agency was collecting the names of donors to nonprofit organizations.

Lois – maybe we can chat after the meeting. Steve wanted to make sure that going forward we were modifying the info request (I told him that I thought your guys were already working on it) and that for the cases already ongoing, that is was clear that if the TP calls, we will allow them not to send donor names in the initial submission (but we may need later). Thanks

At the time, Miller was the IRS’s Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. Miller became the Acting IRS Commissioner on November 9, 2012, four days after Obama’s reelection.

Judicial Watch had previously obtained a May 21, 2012, memo from the IRS Deputy Associate Chief Counsel acknowledged that the donor identities were “not needed across-the-board and not used in making the agency’s determination on exempt status.” Later, in Lerner’s May 10, 2013, remarks she conceded – in response to a question she planted about the IRS targeting of conservative groups – that the requests for donor names was “not appropriate, not usual.” This lawsuit has led to a number of new disclosures about the IRS scandal that brought new attention to the issue from Congress and others in the media, including the exposure of the Justice Department’s plans to prosecute the very groups that had been inappropriately targeted by the IRS. This lawsuit also led to admissions by the Obama administration that supposedly missing emails of Lois Lerner and other top IRS officials still exist.

“These new documents, withheld for years contrary to law, suggest that a top IRS official may have obstructed investigations into the IRS scandal. Even Lois Lerner objected to her boss’s travel to the infamous Cincinnati IRS office, falsely accused by Barack Obama as being solely responsible for the abuse of the First Amendment rights of his critics,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “These documents also show the IRS knew early on that it was abusing its authority and innocent Americans through burdensome information requests and improper collection of the names of donors to groups that threatened Obama’s reelection. This IRS scandal is just getting started. Obama’s cover up of his administration’s suppression of his political opposition continues to unravel.”

]]>http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/irs-foia-batch-7-and-8/feed/6JW Files SCOTUS Amicus Brief, Argues against Subsidies for Federal Health Exchange Enrolleeshttp://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/scotus-amicus-health-exchange/
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/scotus-amicus-health-exchange/#commentsFri, 02 Jan 2015 17:30:16 +0000http://www.judicialwatch.org/?post_type=press_release&p=70986Group asks High Court to affirm the limits on the executive branch’s ability to disregard federal statutes, reaffirm separation of powers (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that on December 24, 2014, it filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the IRS and the Departments of Health...

]]> Group asks High Court to affirm the limits on the executive branch’s ability to disregard federal statutes, reaffirm separation of powers

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that on December 24, 2014, it filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the IRS and the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Treasury over a decision by the agencies to ignore a key provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The lawsuit seeks specifically to prevent the IRS from providing refundable tax credits to individuals who purchase health care coverage through a federal rather than a state exchange. The amicus brief was filed in the Supreme Court of the United States (David King, et al. v. Sylvia Burwell, et al., (No. 14-114)). The plaintiffs are appealing a July ruling by U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that found the broad Obamacare subsidies proper.

Under Section 36B of the ACA, tax subsidies are restricted to individuals who purchase health insurance “through an Exchange established by the State under 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” Similar wording occurs in eight other locations throughout the ACA. In establishing the regulations governing the tax subsidies, however, the Obama administration declared that the phrase “Exchange established by the State” refers to state exchanges, regional exchanges, subsidiary exchanges, and a federally-facilitated exchange.

In its brief, Judicial Watch argued that the decision by the Obama IRS to extending ACA tax credits to individuals purchasing health care through federal exchanges “does not harmonize with the clear purpose of Congress” and could jeopardize the balance of powers:

Petitioners request that the Court to reaffirm the basic principle that the Executive Branch cannot disregard federal statutes in favor of its own policy choices and reverse “the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (“Fourth Circuit”) If the ruling were to stand, the constitutional system of separation of powers would be significantly altered.

Specifically, Judicial Watch argued In re Aiken County is an important 2013 decision from U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that “raise[d] significant questions about the scope of the Executive’s authority to disregard federal statutes.” In that case, the lower court declared that “[u]nder Article II of the Constitution and relevant Supreme Court precedents, the President must follow statutory mandates so long as there is appropriated money available and the President has no constitutional objection to the statute.” The DC Circuit opinion raised fundamental constitutional concerns about allowing a president to ignore federal law:

It is no overstatement to say that our constitutional system of separation of powers would be significantly altered if we were to allow executive and independent agencies to disregard federal law…Our decision today rests on the constitutional authority of Congress and the respect that the Executive and the Judiciary properly owe to Congress…

Applying this constitutional analysis, Judicial Watch noted:

The Executive Branch simply seeks to replace Congress’ policy choice about who is eligible to receive refundable tax credits with its own. As will be addressed below, the plain language and express purpose of Section 36B make clear Congress’ policy choice. The Constitutional authority of Congress – as well as the respect that the Executive and Judicial Branches owe to Congress – demands that Congress’ policy choice prevails. Section 36B should be applied as written.

Citing the legal truism that “Congress speaks through the laws it enacts,” Judicial Watch noted that both the plain language and congressional purpose of the Obamacare law are “clear and unambiguous”:

Section 36B plainly states that only an individual who purchases health insurance coverage “through an Exchange established by the State under section 1311 of the [ACA]” is eligible to receive refundable tax credits … Yet, the IRS interpreted Section 36B more broadly … By expanding the availability of refundable tax credits beyond its statutory authority, the IRS “fail[ed] to respect the unambiguous textual limitations” of Section 36B …

Also because Congress generally cannot require states to implement federal laws … its policy decision to provide refundable tax credits only to individuals who purchase health insurance coverage through an Exchange established by one of the states was Congress’ attempt to strongly encourage states to establish Exchanges … Authorizing the receipt of refundable tax credits to individuals who purchase health insurance through an Exchange established by the federal government would not incentivize the states to create Exchanges. It may even encourage some of the States not to create an Exchange. The IRS Rule therefore directly contradicts Congress’ policy choice.

Section 36B provides all of the information needed to definitively answer the question of who is eligible to receive refundable tax credits. It specifically authorizes the receipt of refundable tax credits to individuals who purchase health insurance coverage through “Exchanges established by the State.” 26 U.S.C. § 36B(c)(2)(A)(i). The federal government is not a state, and an Exchange established by the federal government is not an Exchange established by a state. Congress spoke with “the precision necessary” to leave no doubt what it sought to accomplish, so any extension by the IRS [to provide tax credits to participants in federal exchanges] is a contradictory interpretation and is in excess of its authority.

On July 22, 2014, ironically the same day as the Fourth Circuit ruling in King, in Halbig v Burwell, a panel of the DC Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 against the Obama administration, ruling that within constitutional limits, “Congress is supreme in matters of policy.” But on September 4, the full DC Court of Appeals, which included several new appointees of President Obama, granted HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell’s petition for a rehearing of the case en banc (in full). (Judicial Watch also filed an amicus brief in the Halbig litigation.) Oral arguments were originally scheduled for December 17, 2014, but on November 12 the DC Circuit Court canceled the arguments and ordered the case to be held in abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s decision in King v. Burwell.

If the Supreme Court rules against the Obama administration, an estimated 87 percent of individuals who enrolled through the Healthcare.gov website could lose their taxpayer-provided subsidies.

The Obama administration’s argument that Congress never intended to restrict subsidies to state-run Obamacare exchanges was undermined by Jonathan Gruber during a January 18, 2012, presentation at a conference sponsored by Noblis (a non-profit government contractor). Gruber is the controversial Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist and Obamacare architect. In what he termed an effort to “squeeze the states,” Gruber confirmed that if states did not set up their own exchanges, the federal government would not give their health care applicants income tax subsidies. Gruber told a questioner:

I think partly because they want to sort of squeeze the states to do it. I think what’s important to remember politically about this, is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an Exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits. But your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying to your citizens, you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these Exchanges, and that they’ll do it.

After Gruber’s remarks were widely publicized, U.S. District Court Judge Ronald A. White, citing Gruber’s remarks, also ruled against the Obama administration in Oklahoma v. Burwell. Jude White noted that the Obama administration’s legal position “leads us down a path toward Alice’s Wonderland, where up is down and down is up, and words mean anything.”

“President Obama endeavors to be a despot, to rewrite the law unilaterally without bothering to go through Congress, as his oath to the Constitution requires,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Ironically, the Supreme Court must uphold Obamacare against this president’s attack upon it. And in upholding Obamacare, a law based on lies and economic fantasies, the Supreme Court may help hasten its legitimate end.”

]]>http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/scotus-amicus-health-exchange/feed/2Judicial Watch Lawsuit Forces Release of DOJ Emails Showing IRS’s Lois Lerner Met with DOJ Officials Just Before 2010 Electionshttp://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-lawsuit-forces-release-doj-emails-showing-irss-lois-lerner-met-doj-officials-just-2010-elections/
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-lawsuit-forces-release-doj-emails-showing-irss-lois-lerner-met-doj-officials-just-2010-elections/#commentsTue, 09 Dec 2014 14:07:23 +0000http://www.judicialwatch.org/?post_type=press_release&p=66792 Judicial Watch today released internal Department of Justice (DOJ) documents revealing that former IRS official Lois Lerner had been in contact with DOJ officials about the possible criminal prosecution of tax-exempt entities two full years before what the IRS conceded was its “absolutely inappropriate” 2012 targeting of the organizations. According to the newly obtained documents, Lerner met with top Obama DOJ Election Crimes Branch officials as early as October 2010.

]]>(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released internal Department of Justice (DOJ) documents revealing that former IRS official Lois Lerner had been in contact with DOJ officials about the possible criminal prosecution of tax-exempt entities two full years before what the IRS conceded was its “absolutely inappropriate” 2012 targeting of the organizations. According to the newly obtained documents, Lerner met with top Obama DOJ Election Crimes Branch officials as early as October 2010.

The new documents were obtained through a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against the DOJ on July 21, 2014 (Judicial Watch v. Department of Justice (No. 14-cv-01239)), after the agency failed to respond to an April 21, 2014, FOIA request seeking:

Any and all records concerning meetings and/or communications between the Department of Justice Criminal Division Public Integrity Section and the Internal Revenue Service Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division, the White House, Members of Congress and/or congressional staff, and any non-government entity, regarding 501(c)(4) or other tax-exempt organizations.

As result of a court order, the DOJ last month produced only two pages of heavily redacted emails (832 pages were withheld in entirety) that show the Obama Justice Department initiated an October 8, 2010, meeting between the IRS and top criminal prosecutors at the DOJ Public Integrity Section and Election Crimes Division “concerning 501(c)(4) issues.” On September 29, 2010, a DOJ official (whose name is blacked out) emailed a staff assistant at the IRS (whose name is also redacted):

As we discussed this afternoon, we would like to invite Ms. Ingram [apparent reference to Sarah Hall Ingram former commissioner, IRS Tax Exempt and Government Entities] to meet with us concerning 501(c)(4) issues, and propose next Friday at 10:00 a.m. We are located in the Bond Building, 12th Floor, New York Avenue, NW, Thank you for your assistance.

The document shows that the unknown DOJ official setting up the meeting is with the Election Crimes Division of the Public Integrity Section of the DOJ’s Criminal Division. (Judicial Watch believes the redacted name of the DOJ official is Richard Pilger, Director of the Election Crimes Division.) The DOJ email setting up the IRS meeting is cc’d to the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section Chief, Jack Smith, and Principal Deputy Chief Raymond Hulser. The documents show that Ingram was not available but arranged for her deputy, Lois Lerner, then-Director of the IRS Exempt Organizations branch, to meet with the DOJ senior officials.

On September 30, 2010, the Election Crimes prosecutor emails Lerner:

Hi Lois-It’s been a long time, and you might not remember me, I’ve taken on [REDACTED] duties. I’m looking forward to meeting you, Can we chat in advance? I’m a [REDACTED]

Lerner responded on October 2, 2010:

Sure-that’s a good Idea [sic]. I have a meeting out of the office Monday morning, but will try you when I get back sometime early afternoon. You can try me at 202 283-8848.

The Justice Department has withheld in full at least 832 additional pages of documents, citing various “taxpayer privacy,” “deliberative privilege,” and other exemptions to keep the records secret.

Earlier this year, on April 16, 2014, Judicial Watch forced the IRS to release documents revealing that Lerner communicated with the DOJ in May of 2013 about whether it was possible to criminally prosecute targeted tax-exempt entities. The documents were obtained because of a court order in an October 2013 Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit filed against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

Those documents contained an email exchange between Lerner and Nikole C. Flax, then-Chief of Staff to then-Acting IRS Commissioner Steven T. Miller discussing plans to work with the DOJ to prosecute nonprofit groups that “lied” (Lerner’s quotation marks) about political activities. The exchange included an May 8, 2013, email by Lerner:

I got a call today from Richard Pilger Director Elections Crimes Branch at DOJ … He wanted to know who at IRS the DOJ folk s [sic] could talk to about Sen. Whitehouse idea at the hearing that DOJ could piece together false statement cases about applicants who “lied” on their 1024s –saying they weren’t planning on doing political activity, and then turning around and making large visible political expenditures. DOJ is feeling like it needs to respond, but want to talk to the right folks at IRS to see whether there are impediments from our side and what, if any damage this might do to IRS programs. I told him that sounded like we might need several folks from IRS…

Democratic Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse held a hearing on April 9, 2013, during which, “in questioning the witnesses from DOJ and IRS, Whitehouse asked why they have not prosecuted 501(c)(4) groups that have seemingly made false statements about their political activities

The House Oversight Committee followed up on these Judicial Watch disclosures with hearings and interviews of Pilger and his boss, DOJ Public Integrity Chief Jack Smith. Besides confirming the DOJ’s 2013 communications with Lerner, Pilger admitted to the Committee that DOJ officials met with Lerner in October 2010. (Department of Justice Public Integrity Section statistics show indictments and convictions of federal officials for public corruptions have dropped significantly under the Obama administration.)

According to congressional investigators, on October 5, another Lerner email shows the IRS had sent the FBI and DOJ a “1.1 million page database of information from 501(c)(4) tax exempt organizations” that contained confidential taxpayer information. (In October 2010, the IRS also stopped processing “potential political cases”).

In her May 2013 answer to a planted question, in which she admitted to the “absolutely incorrect, insensitive, and inappropriate” targeting of Tea Party and conservative groups, Lerner suggested the IRS targeting occurred due to an “uptick” in 501 (c)(4) applications to the IRS, but there had been a decrease in such applications in 2010.

“These new documents dramatically show how the Justice Department is up to its neck in the IRS scandal and can’t be trusted to investigate crimes associated with the IRS abuses that targeted Obama’s critics. And it is of particular concern that the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section, which would ordinarily investigate the IRS abuses, is now implicated in the IRS crimes. No wonder the Department of Justice under Eric Holder has done no serious investigation of the Obama IRS scandal,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It is shameful how Establishment Washington has let slide by Obama’s abuse of the IRS and the Justice Department. Only as a result of Judicial Watch’s independent investigations did the American people learn about the IRS-DOJ prosecution discussions of Obama’s political enemies and how the IRS sent, in violation of law, confidential taxpayer information to the FBI and DOJ in 2010. Richard Nixon was impeached for less.”

]]>http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-lawsuit-forces-release-doj-emails-showing-irss-lois-lerner-met-doj-officials-just-2010-elections/feed/26Judicial Watch v. Internal Revenue Service (No. 1:14-cv-01872)http://www.judicialwatch.org/cases/judicial-watch-v-internal-revenue-service-no-114-cv-01872/
http://www.judicialwatch.org/cases/judicial-watch-v-internal-revenue-service-no-114-cv-01872/#commentsTue, 25 Nov 2014 19:46:48 +0000http://www.judicialwatch.org/?post_type=docket_case&p=64585On November 6, 2014, Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information (FOIA) lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) seeking “any and all records” relating to the agency’s “monitoring of churches and other tax exempt religious organizations” for alleged political activity. The lawsuit also seeks communications between the IRS and the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF)...

]]>On November 6, 2014, Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information (FOIA) lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) seeking “any and all records” relating to the agency’s “monitoring of churches and other tax exempt religious organizations” for alleged political activity. The lawsuit also seeks communications between the IRS and the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) concerning such alleged political activities. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The Judicial Watch lawsuit, filed after the IRS failed to respond to an August 4, 2014, FOIA request, seeks the following:

Any and all records concerning, regarding, or related to communication between the IRS and the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) on the promotion of political issues, legislation and candidates by churches and other tax exempt religious organizations; and

Any and all records concerning, regarding, or related to IRS monitoring of churches and other tax-exempt religious organizations to ensure that such organizations are not engaging in the promotion of political issues, legislation and candidates.

]]>http://www.judicialwatch.org/cases/judicial-watch-v-internal-revenue-service-no-114-cv-01872/feed/0Judicial Watch Sues Internal Revenue Service for Records about IRS Monitoring of Churcheshttp://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-sues-internal-revenue-service-records-irs-monitoring-churches/
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-sues-internal-revenue-service-records-irs-monitoring-churches/#commentsMon, 24 Nov 2014 16:01:42 +0000http://www.judicialwatch.org/?post_type=press_release&p=64384Judicial Watch announced today that on November 6, 2014, it filed a Freedom of Information (FOIA) lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) seeking “any and all records” relating to the agency’s “monitoring of churches and other tax exempt religious organizations” for alleged political activity.

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that on November 6, 2014, it filed a Freedom of Information (FOIA) lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) seeking “any and all records” relating to the agency’s “monitoring of churches and other tax exempt religious organizations” for alleged political activity. The lawsuit also seeks communications between the IRS and the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) concerning such alleged political activities. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Judicial Watch v. Internal Revenue Service (No. 1:14-cv-01872).

In 2012, the FFRF filed a lawsuit alleging that the IRS had routinely ignored its complaints about churches promoting political candidates, issues or proposed legislation. In July 2014, the IRS announced that, according to the terms of an agreement reached with the FFRF, it had been monitoring churches and other houses of worship for electioneering and other political activity. According to June 27, 2014, IRS letter to the Justice Department, the IRS has targeted 99 churches it said merited “high priority examination” for allegedly illegal electioneering activities. This church-targeting was determined by an IRS “Political Activities Referral Committee.”

The Judicial Watch lawsuit, filed after the IRS failed to respond to an August 4, 2014, FOIA request, seeks the following:

Any and all records concerning, regarding, or related to communication between the IRS and the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) on the promotion of political issues, legislation and candidates by churches and other tax exempt religious organizations; and

Any and all records concerning, regarding, or related to IRS monitoring of churches and other tax-exempt religious organizations to ensure that such organizations are not engaging in the promotion of political issues, legislation and candidates.

The Wisconsin-based FFRF, which describes itself as “an effective state/church watchdog and voice for … atheism, agnosticism, skepticism,” trumpets the IRS agreement as an “IRS Victory!” on its website homepage. Another victory touted on the atheist group’s homepage is a purported success entitled, “FFRF erases bible quotes from Mo. school’s whiteboard.”

In its 2012 complaint, FFRF alleged that 1,500 clergy members violated electioneering restrictions on Sunday, October 7, 2012. The atheist group has specifically cited church teachings against abortion and same-sex marriage as being in violation of the law. It also cited what it termed “blatantly political” full-page ads running in the three Sundays leading up to the presidential elections by the Billy Graham Evangelical Association. But the FFRF abruptly dismissed its IRS lawsuit after a church, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, intervened in the lawsuit to challenge the IRS’s alleged authority to “revoke a house of worship’s tax-exempt status, and levy fines against churches and individual leaders, when religious leaders are deemed to say things that the IRS does not allow.” Alliance Defending Freedom and other religious rights organizations have challenged directly the notion that the federal government can restrict the speech of pastors.

“As expressed by the First Amendment, Americans have the God-given right to both express their religious views and to engage in the political process,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It is troubling that the IRS seems set to rely on a group of atheists to point them toward churches that might have criticized politicians. And it is even more disturbing that the IRS would violate federal law, The Freedom of Information Act, in order to keep secret its monitoring of Americans praying together in church. To be clear, the very IRS that abused Tea Partiers for Obama’s election now purports to be able to ‘audit’ houses of worship in order to protect politicians from criticism. I am sure the Obama administration is more than happy to use the excuse of a lawsuit by a leftist group to use the IRS to punish churches that oppose Obama’s war on religious freedom.”